RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?

Awww, he's still forgiving us. Isn't that cute? He's not bothering to debate, not bothering to try to alter or fix or even support his flawed premise. Just forgiveness. I guess he's proving he's better than us so he doesn't have to try to support his flawed premise?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?

(04-03-2013 03:59 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:
Premise 1B is technically correct but misunderstood; Dawkins was stating that evolution does not have an end goal in mind, that is evolution does not pick a form and evolve toward it, but rather evolution is caused by selection pressures to cause some forms to increase in population.

Well of course evolution doesn't pick a form. So how did Dawkins get his evolution program to evolve toward a specific form he wanted? He designed the fitness paradigm. It was then that fitness paradigm which guided the evolutionary process toward a particular form...not Dawkins manipulating the mutations. Dawkins use of blind only makes sense if he is talking about a lack of an intelligent agency. He was saying his program was a bit of a cheat because it require him to design the fitness paradigm and that in "real" evolution the fitness paradigm is undesigned, undetermined by an intelligent agent.

Even if Dawkins did not design the fitness paradigm, as long as a fitness paradigm exist, evolution will be guided by it. It will home in on the set of forms which best fulfill the constraints established by the fitness paradigm.

RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?

(04-03-2013 02:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:

(04-03-2013 03:59 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:
Premise 1B is technically correct but misunderstood; Dawkins was stating that evolution does not have an end goal in mind, that is evolution does not pick a form and evolve toward it, but rather evolution is caused by selection pressures to cause some forms to increase in population.

Well of course evolution doesn't pick a form. So how did Dawkins get his evolution program to evolve toward a specific form he wanted? He designed the fitness paradigm. It was then that fitness paradigm which guided the evolutionary process toward a particular form...not Dawkins manipulating the mutations. Dawkins use of blind only makes sense if he is talking about a lack of an intelligent agency. He was saying his program was a bit of a cheat because it require him to design the fitness paradigm and that in "real" evolution the fitness paradigm is undesigned, undetermined by an intelligent agent.

Even if Dawkins did not design the fitness paradigm, as long as a fitness paradigm exist, evolution will be guided by it. It will home in on the set of forms which best fulfill the constraints established by the fitness paradigm.

No, the cheat was that at each stage, Dawkins consciously selected the next generation.

And by 'blind' we mean precisely no intelligent agency. There is no fitness paradigm. Evolution occurs in the ever changing environment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Similar enviroments can SOMETIMES produce somewhat similar forms. That is why convergence happens. Many time the SAME environment, produces many OTHER forms.
The PREMISE IS FALSE. Divergence in the SAME environment is observed, all the time, all over the planet.
He is essentially saying environmets are designed by his deity, to produce ONE form. There are millions if not billions of observed forms.

Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Where are your wings, sir ? Oh you don't have any ? You mean Evolution didn't *home* in on getting a you "pair" ?
Evolution is also divergent, as we have pointed out. Continuing to argue with this obtuse ignorant person, is a complete waste of time.

BTW, if Dawkins said something false, I'd challenge it. This is not false. The point was not that DAWKINS was being challenged, but that the likes of YOU were doing so.
Got it ? Jesus H. Fucking Christ

I forgive you for calling me an obtuse ignorant person.

Super. I don't forgive you for BEING one. BTW, thanks for addressing the points. Deflection, as usual.
What the actual fuck. : "Well of course evolution doesn't pick a form".
The fucking FORM is what evolution produces. What are you trying to say your "fitness paradigm" produces anyway ? (???!!!)
Holy crap. I get it. The name .... we're just being trolled, and we fell for it.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?

(04-03-2013 02:07 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote: Awww, he's still forgiving us. Isn't that cute? He's not bothering to debate, not bothering to try to alter or fix or even support his flawed premise. Just forgiveness. I guess he's proving he's better than us so he doesn't have to try to support his flawed premise?

When people throw insults, I lose my motivation to debate with them. I may be prejudice but I find insult throwers to be closed minded people.

RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?

(04-03-2013 02:22 PM)Chas Wrote:

(04-03-2013 02:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Well of course evolution doesn't pick a form. So how did Dawkins get his evolution program to evolve toward a specific form he wanted? He designed the fitness paradigm. It was then that fitness paradigm which guided the evolutionary process toward a particular form...not Dawkins manipulating the mutations. Dawkins use of blind only makes sense if he is talking about a lack of an intelligent agency. He was saying his program was a bit of a cheat because it require him to design the fitness paradigm and that in "real" evolution the fitness paradigm is undesigned, undetermined by an intelligent agent.

Even if Dawkins did not design the fitness paradigm, as long as a fitness paradigm exist, evolution will be guided by it. It will home in on the set of forms which best fulfill the constraints established by the fitness paradigm.

No, the cheat was that at each stage, Dawkins consciously selected the next generation.

And by 'blind' we mean precisely no intelligent agency. There is no fitness paradigm. Evolution occurs in the ever changing environment.

I think you are confusing his "biomorphs" example with the "methinks it is like a weasel". In the "methinks" the next generation is selected by the computer program.

RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?

(04-03-2013 03:07 PM)Chas Wrote:

(04-03-2013 03:03 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: I think you are confusing his "biomorphs" example with the "methinks it is like a weasel". In the "methinks" the next generation is selected by the computer program.

OK. The cheat in that one is that it is, in fact, goal-oriented. He clearly states that.

It is an example to show the power of cumulative selection.

I'm confused, which example are you talking about? "Biomorphs" or "Methinks"? I'm only interested in discussing "Methinks"....I don't have anything to say about "biomorphs" at the moment.

RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?

(04-03-2013 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:

(04-03-2013 03:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: I'm confused, which example are you talking about? "Biomorphs" or "Methinks"? I'm only interested in discussing "Methinks"....I don't have anything to say about "biomorphs" at the moment.

I am talking about 'methinks'. It is goal-directed. It is used to show the power of cumulative change as opposed to one-off change.

Watch the video again. He isn't talking about cumulative change but cumulative selection. If cumulative selection were blind, it would not be selection but rather just random change.